I agree it is irregular to be bending the rules during the vote but I believe in the sprit of trying to get it correct, we accept his vote. I recognized immediately there was something wrong with the descriptions but did not understand if the descriptions
were just put on the wrong selection or if the selections themselves were swapped. I am comfortable with the explanation and in the end, it is his vote.

While I realize that changing the rules during a vote is irregular, the original rule to me seemed to be without any purpose. If it had a purpose, it seems that a misunderstanding of the ballot should be a stronger purpose than whatever original purpose
there was.

I can understand the purpose if you have >1 vote from different individuals in an org. Then the rule avoids having to litigate who is the legitimate rep for that org. But in the case of a misunderstanding, it seems an unnecessary restriction.

Maybe in the end, it will not matter, but if option B wins by 1 vote, based on a misunderstanding, I think the board will have to revisit the decision.

Today you sent two separate ballots to the Board list. Your first ballot, which was valid, seemed to prefer Option B, but then 2 hours later, you sent a DIFFERENT ballot that switched to Option A, and you changed your reasons.

According to the voting rules, the first valid vote from a Board member is used and cannot be reversed:

8. No changes to a vote will be accepted; no reclama.

While these rules are pretty clear, it would be useful to be clear about what your real intention was, and why the switch occurred.